|
Post by cameron on Nov 17, 2019 22:07:56 GMT
Every Hollies album prior to 'Hollies Sing Dylan' has a dedicated mono and stereo mix, with a few obvious differences between the two at some point. They vary from hugely different edits on albums like 'Butterfly', to fairly consistent mono and stereo mixes like 'For Certain Because...' but with more elements bought to the fore in one mix or the other and slight variants on the track lengths.
I've been picking apart 'Evolution' and there are absolutely no differences between the mixes whatsoever. No different running times, no alternative edits and no more prominent placing of parts (other than the obvious science behind a mono mix vs a stereo mix). Could it be that the primitive stereo mix was another way of speeding up the mixing process? A quick balance of the vocal channel against the instrumental channel and you have a mono mix. Both mixes are equally muddy, and the stereo mix is completely missing any reverb, which all prior stereo mixes on Hollies albums feature. Especially the first three LPs with the same split stereo mixes as 'Evolution' have reverb to bridge the gap in the mix slightly.
Hopefully one day someone will revisit the session tapes for this album and give us a decent sonically clean stereo mix!
|
|
|
Post by baz on Nov 17, 2019 23:04:34 GMT
Hmmm. Interesting theory. A long time since I sat down and listened to both mixes of that album and in fact, the bad mixing is what puts me off playing the album as often as the pair surrounding it. Whilst it would be contrary to standard EMI/Abbey Road practice of the era to make a mono mix from a two track stereo mix you do make interesting points in suggesting that might had been the case this time round. There are usually ways to differentiate mono and stereo mixes as you highlight with different reverb effects, parts coming in at different points and longer/shorter lengths but I do remember when I first heard the mono mix being a little baffled why there weren't any such noticeable differences and felt it sounded badly mixed/mastered. I grew up generally with stereo mixes of many 60's albums and later encountering mono mixes would enjoy spotting the differences, so "Evolution" was a major let down in that department.
The biggest bugbear for me is after a few albums of horrible twin track styled stereo, "For Certain Because" has a good stereo mix with centered vocals and a reasonably pleasing stereo spread for that time then they plunged back to the horrible lazy stereo for "Evolution". There's some great material on this album but neither the mono or stereo mixes sound good to me and of all Hollies albums that desperately needs a new mix from scratch, this is the one.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Nov 17, 2019 23:38:22 GMT
I think of special notice for 'Evolution' is the alternative stereo text on the back of the sleeve. It seems that for a few months in 1967, EMI were contemplating a "foldable" stereo LP if the write up on the back of 'Evolution' is to be believed. The text usually reads "to play this stereo record on a mono reproducer, the reproducer should have either a stereo pick-up wired for mono or suitable mono pick up", whereas 'Evolution' only carries the text "this stereo recording may also be played as mono". The subtle difference there is that EMI are advertising that 'Evolution' will fold neatly to mono, whereas other stereo texts infer that you can play it as mono, but for best results use a stereo reproducer. No other Hollies album carries this text on the back of the sleeve.
So I believe that the Hollies could have been the guinea pigs for a stereo/mono compatible LP, as we know EMI were starting to push stereo in 1967, and they'd get rid of mono altogether by late 1969. To cut the costs of producing two LPs with two sleeves, two labels and two mixes, EMI were considering all the alternatives, as were many other British record labels in 1967. Interestingly, the Beatles' 'Sgt. Pepper', which is just five catalogue numbers after 'Evolution', only carries the line "this is a stereo recording. A splendid time is guaranteed for all", which I think we can discount Pepper as the anomaly because the whole sleeve concept was a clean break from the usual rules at EMI.
Further evidence of the mono fold is hidden on 'Then The Heartaches Begin', because in stereo, the bass is unusually centred in the mix compared to the rest of the LP, then it "wanders" into the right channel during the instrumental, and then back to the centre again. The human ear only hears lower bass frequencies in mono, the human ear cannot tell which direction it is coming from, hence why sub-woofers only have one speaker. Obviously, the tone of a bass guitar allows us to hear the direction of the sound, but very early on in audio mixing, engineers noticed that bass reproduced best when centralised in the stereo mix. During the same spot on the mono mix of 'Then The Heartaches Begin', the bass gets noticeably weaker at the point where it "wanders" in stereo, which is characteristic of a folded stereo mix.
So my theory is that 'Evolution' was a test to see if this new technique of mixing would work. If your turntable amp has a 'mono' button, press it during any other Hollies LP in stereo and the mix will fold but sound a bit "echoey" as the reverb struggles to find a place in mono, whereas 'Evolution' in stereo folds perfectly. So if you believe the text on the back of the sleeve, I think the intention was that if you played it with a stereo cartridge wired for mono, the full stereo mix would reproduce perfectly in mono, and adjustment of the balance could bring out the vocals in the mix perhaps on some more sophisticated equipment.
|
|
|
Post by knut on Nov 18, 2019 15:43:17 GMT
Great investigation Cameron. Where do you place the German reissue mix in this picture?
|
|
|
Post by dirtyfaz on Nov 18, 2019 21:47:36 GMT
An interesting theory Cameron. I have a UK mono of Evolution and I am trying to find the text you are referring to on the back of the sleeve. Both my Evolution and Butterfly mono LP (with fold over sleeves) the bottom 1 1/2 inches the text is identical.
Do you have any documented evidence that in 1967 EMI were contemplating the foldable stereo or just a theory on your part?
Back in 2000 when I put together my recording variations tome sure enough there were no variations that I had found then between the Mono and Stereo versions of the LP. This could most certainly back up your theory.
Surely if it is a fold down it was successful so one have to wonder why The process wasn't continued for Butterfly. Also other EMI releases were still being issued with dedicated mono mixes.
Like I said an interesting theory.
The German LP Knut is referring to is interesting to hear. Even more interesting is the German reissue was released not that long after the original release of Evolution.
|
|
|
Post by baz on Nov 18, 2019 22:21:53 GMT
Do you have any documented evidence that in 1967 EMI were contemplating the foldable stereo or just a theory on your part? Back in 2000 when I put together my recording variations tome sure enough there were no variations that I had found then between the Mono and Stereo versions of the LP. This could most certainly back up your theory. Surely if it is a fold down it was successful so one have to wonder why The process wasn't continued for Butterfly. Also other EMI releases were still being issued with dedicated mono mixes. I think it is a theory as I've certainly not heard of any such contemplations on EMI's part nor seen it happen with other acts that were on their books. Prompted by this thread I did dig out my copies of both mixes and A and B compared a couple of tracks and like yourself in 2000, I heard zero differences in mixes/levels. I've heard plenty of mono and stereo mixes of many albums and there are ALWAYS differences of some kind with different effects, balance or even length. Take Pink Floyd's first album recorded whilst "Evolution" was made. The mono and stereo mixes are radically different in countless ways. Same with "Sgt Pepper" and "Butterfly". I haven't heard the German version Knut mentioned and all I've heard alternate mixwise is that French TV performance of "Have You Ever Loved Somebody" which is the same album take but minus Tony's lead guitar on the first two verses giving it a barer sound. I was familiar with "Butterfly" in stereo so when I first heard the mono mix, it was fun hearing all the differences throughout the album, but "Evolution"? Zero surprises and no differences to be heard at all. What I find intriguing about "Butterfly" is I believe that was intended first and foremost as a stereo album... the stereo mix has no gaps between songs, nor any banding on the 1967 vinyl yet the mono mix is traditional with banding and a few seconds between tracks. I think Cameron has hit upon something unusual and plausible and I doubt we'll ever know for sure what EMI, Ron Richards, Peter Bown and The Hollies were up to with "Evolution" but it definitely goes against the traditional EMI practice of the time, but something unusual did happen here. It now gets me asking the inevitable question - were different mixes of the "Evolution" tracks sent to America for Epic to release or did they get sent the UK mixes for Manny Kellem to tinker with?
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Nov 18, 2019 23:11:20 GMT
I feel like this primitive style of mix was perhaps done intentionally so that the mono fold occurred easier. As we know, 'Hollies Sing Dylan' was folded to mono, but required several tweaks to get the stereo mix to fold satisfactorily. This style of extremely separated mix folds instantly with no problems, which is probably why they went for it. This style of mix was so out of sync with 1967, there's no other EMI issued album from 1967 that I've found that has this style of mix throughout. My other theory, backed up a bit by Graham Nash, was that they bounced too much of the instrumental tracks on the multi-track to free up space for percussion overdubs, orchestral overdubs and lots of vocal overdubs that adorn 'Evolution'. Ron Richards wasn't as conscientious as George Martin in where he placed instruments/voices on the multitrack to get a balanced stereo mix. So when attempting to mix to stereo, they'd have been left with some very lop-sided mixes had they centralised the vocals. So my feeling was that the mix we got was just the best of a bad situation, rather than using the style of stereo mix seen on another EMI LP from 1967, Herman's Hermits' 'Blaze', which is true stereo, but with mono instrumental tracks and the double tracked vocals spread extreme left and right, which does give it a feeling pf pseudo stereo. This would also explain the German mix of 'Evolution', which to my ears has a pseudo-stereo instrumental track but a clean mono vocal track with the odd element thrown in on the extreme left or right for variation, again, perhaps a rejected UK mix to correct the damage done by not bouncing tracks on the master sensibly? dirtyfaz the stereo/mono text on 'Evolution' is in its own box just above the spiel about stereo vs mono reproduction on the right lower side of the rear jacket. 'Butterfly' doesn't carry the same notice about the stereo mix being playable as mono. As I said, 'Evolution' is the only Hollies LP I've seen that carries the text that specifically states that the stereo LP may also be played as mono. I'm pretty convinced that there was some kind of intentional gimmick here, but I've yet to see anywhere else report on it
|
|
|
Post by baz on Nov 19, 2019 12:22:22 GMT
My other theory, backed up a bit by Graham Nash, was that they bounced too much of the instrumental tracks on the multi-track to free up space for percussion overdubs, orchestral overdubs and lots of vocal overdubs that adorn 'Evolution'. Ron Richards wasn't as conscientious as George Martin in where he placed instruments/voices on the multitrack to get a balanced stereo mix. So when attempting to mix to stereo, they'd have been left with some very lop-sided mixes had they centralised the vocals. So my feeling was that the mix we got was just the best of a bad situation, rather than using the style of stereo mix seen on another EMI LP from 1967, Herman's Hermits' 'Blaze', which is true stereo, but with mono instrumental tracks and the double tracked vocals spread extreme left and right, which does give it a feeling pf pseudo stereo. I think that is what happened and the options were rather limited. Not having session data to hand apart from recording dates, I'm guessing most of the tracks were recorded filling all 4 tracks of one tape, bouncing down to mono on one track of a second tape and final overdubs added there, generally vocals and things like odd bass and guitar parts, so the only pleasing mix would have been to do like what was done on the Herman's Hermits album. Now of course, it is possible to synch up both 4 track tapes and create a way more pleasing mix. I do know that not every single multitrack tape of The Hollies exists - the vast majority do but quite possible that a couple of tracks from this album could never be synched and remixed anew. The irony of the stereo used on "Evolution" is you have to switch it into mono to give it a bit of power. Even now for all the remastering, those first two Beatles albums still sound horribly weak in stereo but the mono mixes pack a punch and the same goes for The Hollies albums between "In The Hollies Style" and "Hollies". Mono was still the dominant format in 1967 in the UK and if EMI was hoping to tempt buyers into paying a little extra for a stereo album - after all stereo systems didn't come cheap either - then I would imagine those who did take the plunge and heard this in stereo in 1967 wouldn't have been at all impressed! Indeed I can't think of any other 1967 albums which have a mix like this... there are some albums with strange stereo and panning but not to the extremes used on "Evolution".
|
|
|
Post by gee on Nov 19, 2019 18:54:01 GMT
without digging out my old copy I am pretty sure that in addition to 'Evolution' The Shadows earlier 1967 Columbia album 'Jigsaw' also carried that; 'This STEREO album can be played as mono...' note that Cameron spotted on stereo Evolution copies
where as like 'Butterfly' the second Shads album released later in 1967 'From Hank Bruce Brian and John' carried the 'To play this STEREO record on a mono reproducer...' notice instead
so EMI probably featured both Hollies and Shadows stereo albums as Cameron details above which would make sense as they were two of EMI's top groups then
|
|